From: | Cody Caughlan <toolbag(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Large number of short lived connections - could a connection pool help? |
Date: | 2011-11-15 00:42:00 |
Message-ID: | CAPVp=gYKyQxy2D_3npH0WB313DPTGVao+BifXKKq_Mc7jA07bg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
We have anywhere from 60-80 background worker processes connecting to
Postgres, performing a short task and then disconnecting. The lifetime
of these tasks averages 1-3 seconds.
I know that there is some connection overhead to Postgres, but I dont
know what would be the best way to measure this overheard and/or to
determine if its currently an issue at all.
If there is a substantial overheard I would think that employing a
connection pool like pgbouncer to keep a static list of these
connections and then dole them out to the transient workers on demand.
So the overall cumulative number of connections wouldnt change, I
would just attempt to alleviate the setup/teardown of them so quickly.
Is this something that I should look into or is it not much of an
issue? Whats the best way to determine if I could benefit from using a
connection pool?
Thanks.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ben Chobot | 2011-11-15 00:59:06 | Re: Large number of short lived connections - could a connection pool help? |
Previous Message | Cody Caughlan | 2011-11-15 00:13:41 | Re: Slow queries / commits, mis-configuration or hardware issues? |